Which One-Ils or LPV?

Some years ago, I was flying with a pilot in his Cessna. He was instrument rated, while I was working on mine. I watched him enjoying the two perfectly centered needles (old-style CDIs) accompanying the six-pack panel while flying to a VOR at 6000 feet. He remarked with a sigh of contentment, Now this is the way to fly. It sure was, especially for me, when I was building time in budget-friendly trainers where dual (working) CDIs was a luxury.

Elaine Kauh

Monday, January 21, 2019 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

Pilots' preferences for navigation evolve, often favoring modern GPS-based (LPV) approaches for their simplified routing, efficiency, and automation over traditional ILS procedures.
Despite the ease of LPV approaches, ILS procedures can offer lower minimums, which proved critical in marginal weather conditions where the LPV pilot had to go missed.
The article emphasizes that the chosen approach procedure and its associated minimums can be more decisive for a successful landing in challenging weather than the sophistication of the aircraft's avionics.

See a mistake? Contact us.

Some years ago, I was flying with a pilot in his Cessna. He was instrument rated, while I was working on mine. I watched him enjoying the two perfectly centered needles (old-style CDIs) accompanying the six-pack panel while flying to a VOR at 6000 feet. He remarked with a sigh of contentment, “Now this is the way to fly.” It sure was, especially for me, when I was building time in budget-friendly trainers where dual (working) CDIs was a luxury.

A couple years later, I was flying with this same pilot in his newer, faster Mooney, equipped with a nice HSI coupled to a Garmin GNS 430. While en route to an RNAV fix, he remarked with that same sigh of contentment, “Now this is the way to fly.” Funny how our likes and dislikes can swap ends. This brings us to our latest Clinic: Which approach are you gonna fly?